Open mike 02/11/2010

25 comments on “Open mike 02/11/2010 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   2 November 2010 at 7:52 am

   The proposal to remove gift duty is, wait for it, only going to benefit the wealthy.

   It will mean that the wealthy will be more able to avoid the claims of creditors by the use of trusts and it will make it more likely that they will be entitled to assistance such as social security or residential care subsidies. It will also continue the current trend of wealth accumulating to those who are already wealthy.

   Dunne’s arguments are disingenuous. It may be close to tax neutral as far as the Government is concerned but it does stop people from divesting themselves quickly of assets into entities which they control.

   The Government ought to continue policies that increase the chance the creditors will be paid or that the wealthy will not access schemes not designed for them. That is unless they want to favour the already wealthy.
   • KJT 1.1

     2 November 2010 at 8:46 am

     The logical thing to do would be to remove the concept of private trusts altogether.

     They are simply used to dodge tax or responsibility.

     No problems with separate tax scales for trusts and with gift duties then.

     It is too good a way of avoiding taxes and the consequences of business negligence, for too many in Parliament, for that to be changed though.

     Trust funds for registered charities and philanthropy should, of course, be continued, but with at least one or more independent trustees. Curts should have the power to overturn trusts that cannot be proven to have a charitable purpose outside.
   • Draco T Bastard 1.2

     2 November 2010 at 9:53 am

     Gift duty was put in place because people were using it to avoid paying tax.
     • Ed 1.2.1

       2 November 2010 at 5:32 pm

       The procedure for gifting a considerable amount each year is quite easy – I cannot believe people really pay $300 a year for that. But those that pay the gift duty have either missed those simple procedures, or want to gift such large amounts that the wait is not acceptable. Certainly only the relatively well off will pay gift duty, but there may well be a few stupid well off caught.

       So I guess it ticks all the boxes needed for support from National – it helps the wealthy, even if they are stupid, and in particular helps the extremely wealthy who in special circumstances need to actively manage who pays tax on ‘unearned’ income.
2. Pascal's bookie 2

   2 November 2010 at 8:32 am

   back in day folks used to worry about AI because ‘OMG teh Humanz R DED!’

   Instead we get this. I need a ring tone that goes “Tu-ring Tu-ring”

   http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2010/11/something-to-consider/#comments
3. KJT 3

   2 November 2010 at 9:47 am

   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/liamhalligan/8098834/Mervyn-King-makes-a-stand-for-reform-as-banks-seem-intent-on-forgetting.html

   “Yet little has changed since sub-prime. The “moral hazard” that caused banks to behave recklessly, safe in the knowledge they’d be rescued by the common saps, is bigger than ever. Another assault on public finances is in the offing unless our banking sector undergoes structural reform.”

   I think this needs repeating wherever possible.
4. Draco T Bastard 4

   2 November 2010 at 9:50 am

   Reserve Bank had concerns about South Canterbury Finance related party transactions in early 2009

   The Reserve Bank was worried that South Canterbury Finance (SCF) related party transactions potentially breached the Crown retail deposit guarantee scheme as long ago as April 1, 2009.

   It’s really starting to look more and more like it was a political decision to give our money away.

   SFO CEO Adam Feeley says if fraud that enabled SCF to enter into the guarantee scheme is proven, the consequences would be “immense in financial terms” given the NZ$1.6 billion taxpayer funded payout to SCF investors after the company’s receivership and subsequent Crown guarantee scheme payout.

   If proven then we should be demanding our money back.
   • nzfp 4.1

     2 November 2010 at 1:51 pm

     “If proven then we should be demanding our money back.”

     I’m already doing that…

     Captcha:CONFUSES – what economists do to layman about economics.
5. Draco T Bastard 5

   2 November 2010 at 12:09 pm

   Macroeconomics Is Hard

   In particular, an individual businessman, no matter how brilliant, never has to worry about the fact that total income equals total spending, so that if some people spend less, either someone else must spend more, or aggregate income must fall.

   It’s a complex way of saying that the economy is a zero-sum game. The bit that irritates me about most economists is that they fail to realize that the finite resources we’re working with are real, tangible and are defined by the renewable resource base (this is a little fuzzy ATM as it hasn’t been defined :P). If we use more than that, which we are, then we will crash and burn.
6. nzfp 6

   2 November 2010 at 1:48 pm

   “Mervyn ponders abolition of banking as we know it”
   BBC: Monday, 25 October 2010

   Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, has tonight made a big intervention into the debate on banking reform.
   […]
   list of […] radical proposals
   […]
   1. Forcing the riskiest banks to hold capital “several times the magnitude” of requirements at present.
   2. The Volcker rule-style enforced breakup of banks into speculative and non-speculative arms.
   3. The “Kotlikoff proposal”, which forces banks to match each pool of risks with a requisite amount of capital, preventing losses in one spilling over into another.
   4. Stunningly, Mervyn King imagines the “abolition of fractional reserve banking”:

   “Eliminating fractional reserve banking explicitly recognises that the pretence that risk-free deposits can be supported by risky assets is alchemy. If there is a need for genuinely safe deposits the only way they can be provided, while ensuring costs and benefits are fully aligned, is to insist such deposits do not co-exist with risky assets.”

   Let me highlight that again “Eliminating fractional reserve banking”

   Captcha:LEACH – what the Banks do.
   • Colonial Viper 6.1

     2 November 2010 at 1:58 pm

     Yeah thats pretty astonishing stuff.

     If abolishing fractional reserve banking leads back to something like a very easily manipulable gold standard (there is only a small holding of gold in the world, and access to it will control the money supply of entire countries) then it will be a disaster.

     If he is promoting that the UK goes back to a Government issued, debt and interest free currency, that will be the largest advancement in our monetary systems for 100 frakin years.

     Wait and see.
   • Pascal's bookie 6.2

     2 November 2010 at 3:47 pm

     Whose economic model is this?

     TINA’s

     Who’s TINA?

     TINA’s dead baby, TINA’s dead.
     • nzfp 6.2.1

       2 November 2010 at 4:58 pm

       NiZe one!
7. Draco T Bastard 7

   2 November 2010 at 2:22 pm

   Google sues the US government

   Google and a reseller of its products have filed a lawsuit against the US Department of the Interior after the agency solicited bids for cloud-based email and messaging services specifying that bidders must use Microsoft products.

   So much for “free-market” competition in the US. Certainly going to be interesting to watch the outcome.
8. Draco T Bastard 8

   2 November 2010 at 2:29 pm

   MPs to change rules to skirt perk limits

   Members of Parliament are secretly planning to change the rules around their $24,000-a-year accommodation allowance to make it easier for those who make Wellington their home to still be counted as out-of-towners.

   /facepalm
   Didn’t they learn anything from the Double Dipton rort?

   Best thing that they could do is build a 120 room complex that the ministers stay at when in Wellington and don’t give the ministers any money whatsoever.
   • Jim Nald 8.1

     2 November 2010 at 4:32 pm

     Just read that Phil Goff has released all Labour MPs’ expenses.

     Not just talk but he walks the talk.

     Good on Goff and Labour MPs.

     Thanks for taking a step to bringing more openness, transparency and integrity to the system.
     • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1

       2 November 2010 at 5:03 pm

       Yeah, Greens did as well.
       • Jim Nald 8.1.1.1

         2 November 2010 at 5:22 pm

         That’s right. I’ve just looked up. Good on them.
9. Joe Bloggs 9

   2 November 2010 at 5:04 pm

   I see that the Hon. Stuart Nash has rather adroitly smacked Len Brown down in only his second day in office. Posturing and threats, indeed!

   http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2010/11/01/there-is-life-beyond-the-bombays/
10. Vicky32 10

    2 November 2010 at 5:09 pm

    I heard Denis Welch praising John Key to the skies over the Hobbit nonsense this morning on RNZ… I remember when he was one of the left-ish writers for the Listener in the 90s. I suppose my second ex (the RWNJ) was right when he said nastily that people get right wing as they get older? I was completely disgusted with Welch and Ryan and their insistence that it was all the fault of the Unions, praise Key!
11. Draco T Bastard 11

    2 November 2010 at 6:04 pm

    NRT on Nationals Milestones and Targets

    As for Brownlee’s publicly-stated targets, I’m still pursuing them. Because at present, it seems he just pulled them out of his arse. When you do that in the House in response to a question on notice, its called “lying to Parliament”. I don’t think that’s acceptable, and neither should you.

    Seems that’s it’s more Spin, Hope and Smile from the NACTs.
12. gobsmacked 12

    2 November 2010 at 6:56 pm

    More evidence of Brand Key being devalued:

    http://www.times-age.co.nz/local/news/key-doodles-lose-lustre/3928458/

    If you follow the local press, you’ll have seen many ‘PM doodle’ stories over the past two years. It’s smart PR, because it’s a feel-good story (who could be against charity?) and it reaches the smaller communities, not just the Herald and the Dom-Post/Press cities.

    But it’s starting to look like Team Key need a new gimmick.
13. Logie97 13

    2 November 2010 at 10:21 pm

    Paul Quinn MP used to be fair at Rugby – indeed that’s where he gained his fame.

    He then went into politics and (as a result of being underneath one too many rucks and the resultant bangs to the head) entered parliament in the National Party.

    He has since been stirred into action and has actually sponsored a bill through.
    The rights of prisoners to vote to be taken away.

    Quinn doesn’t appear to have the nouse to think beyond the reactionary. One wonders, infact, what inspired him to sponsor the bill given what is happening in Europe – the complete opposite.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/02/prisoners-vote-european-court-human-rights
14. Draco T Bastard 14

    2 November 2010 at 10:59 pm

    Climate change: are you willing to take the risk?

    Precisely the same pseudo-scientific “institutes,” using the same pseudo-scientific jargon and the same pseudo-scientific “conferences” are now seeking to create the appearance of a “debate” about the fundamentals of climate science. Indeed, the very same people – yes, the same individuals – who were involved in manufacturing doubt about the link between smoking and cancer are now also involved in manufacturing doubt about climate science.

    So, basically, the people spreading doubt aren’t the trustworthy types.

    Thus, events that are 90 per cent or more certain to occur – such as the increased frequency of extreme weather events – people perceive as being only 75 per cent probable, simply because the popular understanding of phrases such as “very likely” is more conservative than intended.

    Oops.

    The IPCC’s conservatism is not confined to people’s perceptions but extends to the physical climate as well. The planet’s climate is changing more rapidly than anticipated by the IPCC: According to a recent peer-reviewed analysis by Professors Freudenburgs and Muselli of the University of California, nearly 90 per cent of all reports about new scientific findings since the IPCC’s 2007 assessment reveal global climate disruption to be worse, and progressing more rapidly, than expected.

    But will we get round to doing anything about it?

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 1 November 2010 at 5:06 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS